🔗 Share this article

Bahrain is set to claim before the Britain's highest judicial body that it possesses state immunity from accusations that it installed surveillance software on the devices of two dissidents during their stay in London.

Court Proceedings Context

Bahrain has been denied its immunity argument in the lower court and court of appeal. Bringing the matter to the supreme court highlights the significance of this matter for the nation's global standing.

If Bahrain prevail, the ruling could have broader implications for how authoritarian governments employ digital spyware to monitor and possibly target political dissidents living in the United Kingdom.

Key Focus of Supreme Court Hearing

The supreme court hearing, starting this Wednesday, will focus on whether the two men have the legal right to seek compensation despite Bahrain's sovereign immunity argument, rather than addressing whether compensation is warranted.

Claims and Proof

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed claim the Bahrain authorities used German-made FinFisher spyware to infiltrate their electronic devices while they were living in London, causing psychological harm. The appellate court last October supported a high court ruling that the State Immunity Act 1978 does not provide Bahrain state protection against their allegations.

Article 5 of the legislation specifies that a country does not have immunity from legal actions for personal injury caused by an act or omission that took place in the UK.

The ruling will also offer guidance regarding additional surveillance allegations being pursued by legal teams on behalf of affected individuals.

Software Capabilities

Attorneys claimed that "The surveillance program can gather vast amounts of data from infected devices, including recording every keystroke, voice calls, messages, electronic mail, calendar records, instant messaging, address books, browsing history, photos, data collections, files and recordings. It allows recording of live audio from the device's microphone and visual recording device."

Judicial Analysis

The court of appeal determined that remote manipulation, overseas, of a computer located in the United Kingdom represented an act within the UK's jurisdiction. Although the cyber intrusion occurred abroad, the effect was that the territorial sovereignty of the UK had been violated.

A foreign state does not have protection for psychological harm caused by an act in the UK, even if certain acts occur overseas. The judicial body also determined that "psychological harm" as defined in the state immunity act included standalone psychiatric injury.

Bahrain's Stance

The appeal court ruling noted that Bahrain denied the accusers' claims of compromising the dissidents' computers with spyware, but the high court judge "found, on the basis of specialist testimony, that the plaintiffs had discharged the burden upon them of demonstrating on the balance of probabilities that their computers were infected by spyware by Bahrain's servants or agents."

Plaintiffs' Statements

Shehabi, a co-founder of the opposition group al-Wefaq, welcomed with the legal proceedings, stating: "I am pleased with the progress to date of the legal proceedings regarding the cyber intrusion of my computer. It sends a strong signal to overseas authorities who pursue their non-violent critics with multiple methods including intruding into their personal affairs and devices."

Mohammed, who fled Bahrain in 2006 after facing frequent detention within the nation, commented: "This process has now arrived at the highest court in the country. I have a responsibility to expose what I endured when I believe Bahrain compromised my device. The effect has been profound – especially for those who placed their trust in me, and for my friends and family."

"Repressive governments like Bahrain must be held accountable for wrecking our lives. They cannot be permitted to use state protection to pursue their cross-border persecution on British soil."

Both men have had their Bahraini citizenship revoked.

Attorney Commentary

A senior legal representative commented: "This case present fundamental questions about responsibility for the deployment of intrusive surveillance technology against civil society members and members of civil society. Our clients, and numerous additional people we represent, have waited a long time for clarity on these issues."